While it makes sense to try and protect your citizens from financal damages that they may not be able to afford it seems counterintuitive to push SEC regulations on an anonymous system. I myself think that if you want to invest in an ICO go for it if you win good job if you lose well hopefully it wasn't too much but its your money to do what you want with. No one earned it for you but everyone wants to tell you how you can or can't spend it. #Merica
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree that regulation and anonymity seem to be mutually exclusive here. But perhaps there's a way around it. I'd prefer your approach, too.
This 'accredited investor' nonsense, where you have to meet certain income /networth thresholds, boarders on nanny state. Let people do what they like with their money.
Now that being said, I think there are a lot of scammers out there who would use the ICO vehicle to make off with investor's money. My opinion would be that the SEC should protect investors that way, by prosecuting people who scam investors out of money via ICOs.
I agree it would be nice to hold the scammers accountable. Maybe they could do some type of escrow account where you place said number of funds in to and then from that account you can purchase ico tokens. Maybe this approach could serve as the "income" limit workaround and protecting the investor until the token has been fully delivered upon. This could also prevent ico pump and dumps I think. Future block chain platform idea... hmm